Re: Faulty petrol or faulty engine management systems?



Ivan wrote:

johannes wrote:
Ivan wrote:

johannes wrote:
Ivan wrote:

johannes wrote:
Ivan wrote:

johannes wrote:
Ivan wrote:

Turkey Cough wrote:
Is it the petrol or engine management systems in cars which is
at fault? It seems to me that an 'old fashioned' car with as
simple carburetor rather than a fancy enginel management
system would have had no problems with the 'faulty fuel'.


Under the guise of being environmentally friendly, which really
means that 'we're locking you into our main dealership which
possesses all the kind of essential specialised equipment that
your local garage probably couldn't afford to install, so we
can now talk about bills for 600 quid like we used to about
bills for £60.

Clue, usually a Fifteen-year-old diesel car will run quite
happily on 100 per cent carbon neutral biodiesel without any
problems, whereas many manufacturers nowadays don't recommend
any more than a five per cent bio mixture on vehicles
manufactured during the last few years.

Carbon neutral? - arrrgh! I smokes CO2 out of the exhaust, all
the same. CO2 is absorbed in plants, that always happens in any
case, all the same.


http://www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/

Compare the two scenarios. Fossil Fuel Man (FFM) and Bio Fuel Man
(BFM)

BFM FFM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants grows Plants grows
Plants absorb CO2 Plants absorb CO2
Harvest plants for fuel Plants die CO2 goes into ground
New plants grow New plants grow
Drive car on fuel Drive car on fuel
CO2 into atmosphere CO2 into atmosphere

Same difference...


Try Googling for the environmental and health (50 per cent
reduction in particulates) advantages of using 100 per cent
Bio-diesel, and I think you might just find your views are in a
bit of a minority.

I agree on your point about particulates, but that was not the issue
discussed, the issue was carbon neutrality.


Well johannes, who am I to argue with the overwhelming consensus of
opinion on the subject, like I said, try Googling around for the
environmental advantages of using 100% Biodiesel.. I'm truly amazed
that so many people appear to have got it so wrong.

Here we go. Well Ivan, why don't you think for yourself and argue the
issue? A am not against bio fuel, it's probably a good thing for the
reducing the particulates. But I just think that the holier-than-thou
sales pitch is a bit over the top. Why don't you comment on my above
comparison scheme rather than a robotic response?


I would be the first to confess that I'm not too up on the mechanics of the
situation, but AIUI by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal we are
releasing into the atmosphere Co2 which has been trapped for millions of
years.

Whereas you point out new plants actually remove Co2 from the atmosphere and
when they rot or are burnt as fuel then the Co2 is re-released, which is
then taken back out of the atmosphere by a new-generation of plants which
are planted for the production of biofuel, therefore the carbon neutral
cycle continues.

The term 'carbon neutral' is what grates my brain. At the highest level, carbon
is always neutral, unless it is somehow dumped into outer space. At the next
level, fossil carbon is also neutral, since it was originally trapped by
biological organisms. The (possible) concern we have today is an increased CO2
level in the atmosphere. CO2 is pumped out from car exhaust, whether the cars
run in bio-fuel or fossil fuel. CO2 is absorbed by plants, whether this CO2
originates from bio fuel or fossil fuel. If plants are not harvested for
fuel, then they die and their carbon in returned into the ground, not the
atmosphere (unless burned or used for e.g. bio fuel).

I've probably got it all wrong, but someone will be along to explain exactly
what does happen.

The sleight of hand fallacy is that they think that only 'their' CO2 from
the bio-fuel is absorbed by plants. Obviously, CO2 is just CO2 from any source
you care to mention. The is no such thing as specific bio-fuel-CO2.

However, bio-fuel is cleaner in particulates and NOx derivatives.

However somehow I feel that a much better solution would maybe hinge around
stop chopping down an amount of rain forests the size of Wales every year!

Agreed.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Faulty petrol or faulty engine management systems?
    ... johannes wrote: ... CO2 is absorbed in plants, ... Fossil Fuel Man and Bio Fuel Man ... the issue was carbon neutrality. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: OT: Rant over "I now bliefe in Gobal Worming"
    ... When the biofuel is burned, the CO2 is released again, ... However if you grew the plants, but didn't burn them, that is ... then burn whatever fuel costs the ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Is conversion of biomass to h/carbons CO2 neutral ?
    ... assisted with extra hydrogen (and potentially extra energy) generated ... from nuclear plants, should be CO2 neutral. ... both the shortage of fossil fuel and CO2 pollution? ... Ethynol actually uses more fuel than its burning saves us, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: nut flaps... (Astro-Turf Wars)
    ... grass, or whatever, and you're converting it into fuel. ... changed the total amount of carbon in the biosphere, ... definitely added CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn't there before. ... what green plants do - collect the carbon and release the oxygen. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: OT: Rant over "I now bliefe in Gobal Worming"
    ... When the biofuel is burned, the CO2 is released again, ... However if you grew the plants, but didn't burn them, that is ... then burn whatever fuel costs the ...
    (comp.dsp)